Jun 12, 2023 Historic Landmark Commission on 2023-06-12 5:30 PM

All right, I'm going to call the meeting to order it is June 12, 2023, it is 530 and we will stand for the pledge please, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And now we will pledge to the Texas flag. Without any words up there on the screen? On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one nation, indivisible. All right, thank you very much. Good to see everybody. All right, we are going to start with our first item on the agenda, which is HLC 23-0302, consider the approval of the May 18, 2023 minutes. It is the 8th, thank you, it is the 8th, 2023, for approval of the minutes, everyone get a chance to read them, they are kind of short. Anyone want to make a motion? All right, let me move approval in a second. In a second, everyone raise your hand if approved. All righty, let's move to item 2B, COA 23-0004, and hold a public meeting and consider an application for a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with section 2.9.2 of the DIT and development code to rehabilitate the former carriage house at 722 West Oak Street, a local historic landmark property and recorded historic Texas landmark located in the Oak-Hickory Historic District. This site is located on the northeast corner of West Hickory Street and Mount Avenue. COA 23-0004, 722 West Oak Hickory, and Cameron is going to start us off. Thank you, Chair. So as stated, this is located on the northeast corner of West Oak Street and Mount Avenue, highlighted there in red. The owners are Randy Hunt and Annetta Ramsey. It is a construction date of Serpent 1906. It is also known as the Crystal House, and it does have a former carriage house. So just to give a little bit of background on the building's history and the property in general, it was constructed for Jim and Margaret Crystal. The builder/architect was Frank Kraft. The main resident itself has a Victorian Italianate style, and then the former carriage house does have that detail in both the Italianate and that craftsman style. Some of the defining features of that former carriage house, which we'll be focusing on tonight specifically, has that eave overhangs. It has the multi-light windows and that pyramidal roof that you saw in that historic photo. And as stated, it is a local historic landmark and recorded Texas Historic Landmark property. So the request itself is to the rehabilitation of the former carriage house. The carriage house is located on that northern edge of the property along Mounts Avenue. The garage is not part of that recorded Texas Historic Landmark designation, so it didn't require a THC review. Usually you get that letter. So it's just going in front of the HLC this evening. So these are the current conditions of that property. You see that front south façade with the stairs, the north rear façade along Mounts Avenue, the west façade, or the Great Street west façade facing Mounts Avenue, and then the east façade, which is facing an existing garage. So these are the proposed elevation drawings. I'm just showing the front elevation at this moment. The materials have a wooden clapboard siding. It would be using antique and new wooden multi-light windows. And it would have asphalt shingles and paint to match the main residence. So what I wanted to do on this front elevation is show you some of those principles that they're bringing back from the main façade and from that historic documentation you have from that historic tax photo. So they are introducing brackets, which will match that new or the current main residence. They will also bring back the multi-light windows that you see. It's a little hard. I feel like it might be a little pixelated up here, but it is in your backup packet. But there are multi-light windows here shown, and so they are reintroducing those again. And they're bringing back that pyramidal style roof that is on the main residence, but also was seen on that 1946 tax photo. The proposed elevation for the front south façade, as I stated, some of those little details, but also they're going to be bringing the original craftsman style door. They were able to find that door, so they're reintroducing that where the current door is, they're bringing that back. So that will be nice to have some of that original craftsman style detailing that was on that former house or structure. In the rear and the north façade, they will be replacing the two windows on the ground floor that are centrally located. They're going to be doing a faux carriage door. As I stated, it was a former carriage house. They're using it kind of as an educational piece as to what the structure was originally used for. Also have that faux carriage feature at the top there in the center. But the two windows right here and on the ground floor will be remaining. On the east façade, as that is the façade that is facing that existing garage, the two windows on the ground floor will be removed as well as this. That's kind of related to the interior floor plan that they have, but this one window will be remaining. I haven't mentioned it yet, but this exterior stair will be removed. Obviously, it wasn't original to the structure itself, and it will be placed in the interior of this rehabilitated structure. On the west façade, this is facing Mount Street. All these windows will remain in place. The ground floor window will be replaced with a multi-light window as well. This is the proposed roof plan, so that pyramidal roof scheme. Staff's analysis, I'm not going to go into tons of detail, but it was focused on the standards for rehabilitation. It focused on seven of the ten standards, one through six, and then standard nine. Additionally, staff's analysis looked at DDC section 4.9.4C for that Oak-Hickory Historic District, focusing specifically on accessory buildings, architectural detail, façade materials, roof forms, windows, and doors. Staff is recommending approval of a certificate of appropriateness request for the rehabilitation of the former carriage house at 722 West Oak Street, as it does meet that Secretary for Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and does comply with section 4.9.6C of the DDC. Any questions? Anyone have any questions for Karen? Wouldn't be a meeting if we didn't discuss windows. What does the antique and new windows mean? So they are repurposing a lot of antique windows from salvaged buildings. So it has the original wavy glass, has the multi-lights already in place, so they'll be doing that. And if they aren't able to replace those windows, from my understanding they'll be using new wooden windows that do look historic in nature. And we do have the applicant here, if you do have any questions for him. I was just going to comment that it sounds like they really are trying to be sensitive to meeting those standards for rehabilitation. Staff obviously is comfortable with this. Are you ready for a motion? Do we need to hear from the applicant? Do you all want to hear from the applicant, or do you feel like you can move forward and make a decision? Anything you'd like to add? Yeah. If so, if you don't mind coming up here, it's an issue. Cameron did a great job of doing it. No, actually all of the windows will be antique. I found a seller in South Carolina and we just received the windows yesterday. So the main thing is that the roof that was on the building, the building burned in 1946. So sometime around 1950 they put the gabled roof on it, and that is the roof style. I've been reading a lot about roof styles. It's the roof style that is the most vulnerable to wind. And you may have read how much damage we found inside and how, like we've been told we can't go on the second floor. We're afraid that if the windows lose it would either implode or it would land in our neighbor's yard, which would not be good. You don't know what to be worried about until you know. So we want to go back to the pyramidal style and we want to copy it as faithfully as we can. So it's going to be a lot more expensive, but I'm so excited. And actually the faux door that we're putting on on the street side of the building, we actually found two doors. So we opened up all the walls and found a lot of wood rot in there. So we've had to replace some of the siding so that you couldn't walk through the outside walls. But we actually found two doors. So there was a door in the center that we have recreated and we've actually used antique windows at the top of it. But it won't actually be a door. It will have hardware on it. It will look like you could open it, but you won't be able to. But that was the door that the carriage came out. And then on the west side of the building there was another door for the horse to come out of. So we're not going to reproduce both doors because it's kind of a security issue. We're trying to balance security. So it has been apartments for over 50 years. And what happens with old buildings is that as people make repairs, they do them badly. And so we took out three dumpster loads of modern stuff. But we were able to save quite a bit of beadboard, three-quarter inch, quarter-son of flooring that's an inch thick, or it's an inch wide. And a lot of shiv-labs. So all of the walls of the interior will be either beadboard or shiv-labs. So we're very excited that it's going to look really old. And we found all of the old doors in the attic. So they put water doors in and someone put their fist through a couple of them. So we had to remove them, but we have antique doors. And so inside and out of them. Pretty cool. So we're very excited. Well, thank you. Thank you for the detail, too. Personally, this has nothing to do with the voter or anything. But personally, when you finish it, I'd love to see pictures or something because it sounds dreamy to me. Come by. We're hoping to rent it. And we actually have people already. But yeah, come by. We would gladly show you around. But we do happen to know a lot about the original builder, Jim Crystal, the owner of our house. And he was actually a cowboy. And he worked on the 4-6 Ranch with his uncle, Burt Bermit. And so he was very particular about the carriage house. And he wanted it to be the same level of quality as the house. So it's heartbreaking that it's been treated so badly because it is a 116-year-old building. But I think we're going to get it back to a place where it will stand for 100 years. Nobody's going to think it's a garage apartment anymore. Thank you. Thanks for all the information. Thank you. I move approval of COA 23-0004. We have a motion by Lennie. Do we have a second for approval? Yes, sir. All right. And Lance, second. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Same for any names. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next piece on the agenda is a work session for HLC 23-002-7. Discussions determine the opportunities for designating the five historic black churches of the Southeast Denton neighborhood. I keep trying to use the mic and I realize I'm not at PNZ right now or anything else. Okay. Here we go. So this was a previous matrix item, I believe it was back in April. This was placed on the matrix on April 10th. So bringing that back this evening. So I just want to kind of run through a brief history of each of the historic black churches in Southeast Denton. I'm not going to go into huge detail, but I just want to kind of give you a background. And then on the last slide, I do show that criteria and kind of talk about what those next steps would be. So in Southeast Denton, we have five historic black churches. We have the St. Andrew Church of God in Christ, which is located at number one. We have Pleasant Grove Baptist Church. We have Mount Pilgrim Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Number four is St. Emmanuel Baptist Church. And then lastly, we have the St. James African Methodist Episcopal Church. So the first church is St. Andrew Church of God in Christ. It's located at 608 Lake East Street. Just some brief history, it was founded in 1922 by Bishop Fred L. Haynes. Its services were first held in a tent once they were removed from Quaker Town. And then I thought it was really interesting. Within the last 100 years, they only have had six pastors for that church, which is pretty fabulous. Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, this is located at 105 South Wood Street. It was originally founded before 1878, no one knows the exact date. It was originally located in Quaker Town as well. It is now Quaker Town Park. It moved to Solomon Hill, addition in 1923. The current church was constructed in the early 1950s. Staff did notice that there actually is a Denton Historic Landmark plaque. It's hidden right there on the side. I went out there this afternoon. It's not in any log sheets or anything. It's not in any of my documentation. From what I was able to find, it was implemented in 1991, and I don't know if it was a historic narrative or an actual historic designation, because I haven't been able to find an ordinance tied to it. So I'm going to investigate further, but I wanted to let you all know that's where that is at. In regards to Mount Pilgrim CME Church, that's located at 339 Robertson Street. It organized in 1880. Its services were originally located on Hodge Love, which they believe was owned by George and Edwina Hodge, and this is mid-block along Allen Street, so in that southeast Denton neighborhood. The first church was built originally at 337 Robertson Street, and the church that you see here in the photo was built in the early 2000s. St. Emmanuel Baptist Church is located at 509 Lakey Street. It was founded in August of 1906 and located on Sander Street, which is now part of Quaker Town Park. It moved to its current location in 1923s. The current church constructed was during the 1950s, so the one that's shown in the photo, and it did receive a State of Texas Historical Marker in 2006, which is pictured. And then lastly, we have the St. James AME Church, which is located at 608 Lakey Street. This was founded in 1875 by members of the Freedman Town, which later became Quaker Town. It was the first church of Quaker Town, or as we've been able to find out via research, it is located at Oak and Crawford Streets since 1922. The current building that you see in the photo was constructed in 1962, and it also received a State of Texas Historical Marker in 1985. So, as part of our historic landmark criteria, we do have the 13 options, or 13 criteria here. As part of that property, the property must meet one or more of that 13 approval, and each of that criteria that's chosen does have to have supporting documentation. I did link this here so that if you all want this presentation once I'm done, I'm happy to send this out to you all. But if the Commission is interested, this is mentioned in the AIS as well, but if the Commission is interested in pursuing these local designations, the Commission will need to contact the various churches to assess their individual interests in pursuing local historic landmark designations. So I can take any questions, but this is open for discussion, it is a work session, so you all can ask questions, discuss amongst yourselves, and I will be here. Yes. Go ahead. Has there been any interest from the Southeast End community at all in doing this? So that is kind of going to be discussed in our next agenda item. I have not received any personal phone calls or emails from any members of the community stating that they are interested. You know, if this is something that the Commission is interested, then it would have to be something that the Commission goes out and talks with those members of the community, or perhaps participates in the Southeast End area plan conversations and sees whether or not the community really wants to be involved if this is somebody of interest, or if they're wanting to even maybe do state or national. You know, they do have those options as well. But no, I have not personally received any emails or phone calls. I just know that the whole question of repairs and things to the churches can be very costly. And most of those churches, certainly St. James, was just barely hanging on. They had to receive donations from other churches in order to be able to make the renovations and salvage the church. I had wondered that. I wondered if that had been a factor. Well, and they wouldn't be able to benefit from any of the tax incentives either. That was my question. But did they not get donations? I thought I read in here that there was a donation from these developers. They did get a donation. Each of these churches did receive $10,000 from a community benefit agreement, but I don't know how that $10,000 is being used. So out of the five, three already have the designation. So right now, as I stated, I still need to figure out what the Pleasant Grove designation necessarily is. It could be just a narrative or it could actually be the designation of the property as a landmark property. So I will let you all know once I'm able to determine that. Once I can find some documentation to support that, I'll let you all know. In regards to the St. Emmanuel Baptist and St. James, these are just informational markers. So these aren't actual recorded Texas historic landmark markers. So these are just informational markers. Yes. I think I wondered after reading that article in the Devin Rucker Chronicle about this, is what would be the advantages to them? Frankly, I was hoping there would be one, but I did wonder about what sort of tax advantage they might gain. I don't know. So because they're a church, there's not a lot of tax advantages to it, unfortunately. I assume not. But I do know that the National Parks did just come out with a grant related to specifically black churches. It's very new. I don't have a ton of information on it. I'm happy to do additional research on that and send you all a memo of some sort. But that's the only thing I've heard of late that's come out. Besides that, it's more just the recognition from not only local, but having it at the state and national level. That's why a lot of people first pursue national, is because it really can be an economic driver. It's all about the recognition. Would it not also prevent them from having to be moved again? Yes. So at the local level, there would be that zoning, because it would be a zoning action that designates the property. There would be that demolition stay that you all would have to review it if there was going to be a demolition of any sort. It would be more tedious in trying to get that church to move in the future. That is correct. Unless they wanted to move. Yes, unless they wanted to move. It's a development, because it's why I understand the 50 grand that was divided among the five churches was coming from a developer. So there's some interest in that area, clearly. That's my concern. So at the local level, it would provide a zoning protection or a zoning action. However, not at the state or national. So I just wanted to... And that's why I wanted to point that out, because we had that. Yes, no, thank you for doing that. My second question is, and you said that our commission here would have to go to them and speak to them about that. Are we to where we can talk to them about that? I'll hear from this person on the next piece. That's the next piece. Tina Fergens, Deputy Director of Development Services. The whole point of the conversation, this agenda item, is whether or not the commission is interested in working with the churches and seeing whether or not there's any interest on their part to pursue the local designation. So to me, that type of conversation occurs here on this item. The next agenda item was just regarding surveying properties within the southeast end of the area. So to me, that's a little bit of a separate conversation. But yeah, I mean, if there's any additional discussion with the commission about whether or not you all are interested in having further conversations with the five churches to see if there's any interest on their part. You all, as ambassadors for our historic preservation program, have the ability to reach out to these property owners, have that conversation with them regarding what you believe the benefits would be for them, in addition to then what would be the regulatory aspect associated with it as well, the thing we'd have to work through. But that's why we're having this conversation tonight. So in talking about whether or not we want to talk to them, what summaries do we need to give them, and like this timeline for if they decided they want -- we talked to them, and they decided that they wanted to then -- what is our answer to them about how long of a time process is that? My thing is, if these developers have a different plan than what they're wanting -- So keep in mind, the churches themselves have the ultimate say as to what happens to them, especially if they own their property, right? They own their buildings and their property. Ultimately, it's up to them, just like any property owner, what they choose to do with their property. So if a developer was to come calling and say, "Hey, we're interested in your property," they can tell them to, "No, we're not interested, and thank you for calling." Because ultimately, the churches of the property owner have the ultimate say as to what happens to their property, right? Because they own it. To me, I think, to address the first part of your question, we could help the commission with maybe giving some talking points for you, especially regarding what are the benefits of local designation, and then also talk about the timeframe for pursuing that local designation. What would all be entailed associated with that? What kind of documentation we might need to receive to be able to assist them through processing their local designation request? How that goes through the Historic Landmark Commission, and then how that proceeds to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. We can help educate them on that aspect, right? But it's really helping them understand the benefits of pursuing that local designation. So we could help with some of the talking points for you all as you visit with members of each of the churches. So that way, it helps have a consistent message going out, but anything procedural-wise, then you're more than welcome to have them. You can always say, "Look, talk to Cameron. Cameron knows all the specifics and details." But because that's what she is here, it's to be a resource for the community as well. So she can help educate on that procedural side of things. Well, it sounds like, though, Cameron, from what you just said earlier is that the advantage to the churches is not from a local or even a state, but from the national level. You said the National Park Service, which is not a local thing and it's not a state thing, so that the only grant funding then is only available through national. So that's really what, if I were one of the church members, that's what I'd be most interested in, to be honest. Well, at the national level, like I stated, I still need to do additional research, so they still might be required to have a local designation or a state. So once I do a little bit more research on that, I can provide more detail. But yes, right now, in terms of funding, if they want to do maybe maintenance or additional work or restoration or something, I'm assuming that's what the grant is for, but I'm not going to speak at a turn because I'm not sure until I do additional research. So that is all I know of now. But at the local level, as I stated, it is a zoning action. They do own their property, but it does have that property already as a designation. So if they want to keep that property and stay in that building or in that area for the next hundred years, they have that zoning saying, "Hey, we are a historic church." And say if they wanted to, but they wanted to sell to another historic church, they would have that capability by having that. Does an eminent domain affect any of this? I mean, there is an eminent domain going on all over the place. So if you might, eminent domain is the legal proceeding, and that involves when governmental agencies are involved, right? So if the governmental agency was looking to purchase a property, then we just can't take someone's property. We have to provide compensation for our market value. It's when we're in disagreement on what that value is, then when it goes through the legal proceedings of eminent domain. And so that's something completely separate from what this is. This, I think, what we could do is as part of those talking points that Cameron provides, maybe we do a little more research into that federal grant that's become available to see if there are some unique qualifying aspects, particularly if local designation is, because then that can be part of that conversation that the commission has with the individual property owners. So if that gives them an opportunity to have an additional level of funding available to them, then it's part of that education process, right? Because they may not be aware of that funding source being available to them. And especially if it has the ability to help fund some significant improvements that the individual churches may be considering, then that's a potential significant benefit to them. Well, I'm wondering, so I'm sorry, if we could prepare maybe not more than two pages of what the designation would do for them, including the limitations if they got it. I'm happy to do that. Because they would have to know that. And if we could send that perhaps to the ministers in advance, because if we just call them up and cold and say we want to come and talk to you about this, I'd like them to already know the background, what we're talking about. And my concern is not so much in the domain or anything like that, but when something happens and the church needs repairs, what are the limitations on the kind of repairs they can do once they get this designation? Because they may want to take something that is the cheapest, easiest route and that may not be suitable. And they need to understand that before they make a decision. I was going to say, I can definitely share that in the packet, but I do want to share that with you all now just so that you all understand. If it is a recorded Texas Historic Landmark or it is a local landmark, it would be required to go in front of you all if it is more than ordinary maintenance. If it is them just fixing a light bulb or some of their lighting or changing a paint color or doing anything kind of of ordinary maintenance and upkeep, that would go directly to me for review. If that's only on exterior, not interior, is that correct? Correct. Yes. So interior, I don't have any jurisdiction over it, nor does the HLC. So they can do anything on the interior in terms of maintenance or updates or repairs. If it's on the exterior as a local or record Texas Historic Landmark past that ordinary maintenance, it would have to go one in front of Historic Landmark Commission as well as myself for review. But it would also have to go in front of the Texas Historical Commission. So say if they want to do a new addition, if they want to add an additional room in the rear, they would be required to go through the Texas Historical Commission if they record Texas Historic Landmark as well as myself and Historic Landmark Commission. If they were doing, if they only had a National Register Landmark designation, they would not be required to do any of that. So that's what people see as the perk of the National Register District. They can do whatever they want in terms of exterior, but with the knowledge of knowing if they do too many additions or changes to the exterior, that if it doesn't match that original architectural integrity, that they can be removed from the National Register. Therefore, their plaque would be removed. So there is that kind of give and take. Could we include that in when he was proposing? Yes, I can definitely include all of this information, but I just wanted to share that with you all that also National Register does not have any demolition stays. So if someone wants to demo tomorrow, they can demo tomorrow. But at the state and the local level, they would not be able to demo tomorrow. And Linda's comment kind of points up, this is a little different situation than what we've dealt with before. Because some of these, frankly, they're really, it's really not about the physical structure. It's about the more intangible community that's been around since Reconstruction in all of these places. And so, you know, I don't know. I've been thinking about this and I don't know exactly how to place out for us. But wouldn't, wouldn't having the local designation be trying to protect the structure from the community? Yeah. So I mean, that seems kind of counterintuitive. I see it as a great recognition, though, of the neighborhoods. Right. I would love to, I would like to see it landmark, you know, I can see the downside to living in an old house, right? I'm with you. And I think with having those historic markers there on whatever, you know, from when the church began and all that, whatever those are. I think that we're doing an injustice to not bring it to them and say, here it is. Here's all the pros and cons. Let them decide what's best for them, what's not. We're bringing it to them on here's why. We think it's worth putting a historic marker here, whether it's local or state level. You already have this other one we want to add to it. Again, I think we bring it to them, let them decide. But my question with that is when you said that we need to go out and speak to them. And I'm okay with that. But I just want to know, is it possible that we can invite all of those those five at one time? Can we use a city building? If not, I'm sure one of them would probably allow us to use their building for that, where we can talk to them all at one time instead of having to do, I don't know if anyone has time to go individually. We can definitely do that. That's not a problem. So like to send the letter that you talked about and then set a date for a public meeting, I guess, if you will. Yeah, it's probably be more like a town hall or some sort of group meeting. I was just saying, we can work through the legality aspects associated with that. If anything, we might have to do like a notice of possible quorum, especially if we think we may have a quorum of the Historic Landmark Commission. But yeah, we could, with your help, we can do a public meeting. We can post it in our building, if we wanted, since that's when the Commission normally meets. But we could invite folks to come and hear what you all have to say. And collectively, we could put together a presentation and have the handout available for folks and then just open it up to Q&A and see what kind of questions representatives from the various churches may have. That's kind of what I'm thinking. I was thinking that if we prepared this information and provided it to the ministers at least at first, hopefully they would talk to whatever their governing board is within another church. And we could tell them that we would propose a meeting to talk about this further if they were interested at all. There may be absolutely no interest if they are fearful of the cost of this because that's a real problem because St. James would not still exist if they had not had significant help from two other churches in town. And so, I mean, you can't count on that kind of help coming every time. I think in the two page packet, that would all be spelled out. So, literally all the pros and cons that I've already kind of discussed here, but it would be a comparison of local, state, now I've already kind of done that in general. I think we're not doing overlays anymore probably, but it almost would think, hey, would these five churches qualify for an overlay for the very thing that Lynnie is speaking about? Do you mean a conservation overlay? A conservation. I just wondered if that's a possibility, if we would even entertain that. And the reason being is for the very costing, the things that we hold standard on, oh, you have to do this, this, and this, that it may not be that strict for an overlay like that. I just don't know if that's an option or not or if the commission would even consider that. So, I will just be honest with you all, that's definitely something that I've brought up to the team that's working out specifically with the Southeast Denton neighborhood on the area plan. I don't know if it's been discussed specifically with the consultant or the community as of yet, but that is something that has been mentioned. So, I just wanted to let you know that that could be a possibility. There are less restrictions, but it does usually come with those general design standards of some sort. And it would be required to go through that COA process, but it's not as rigorous. It wouldn't have the state maybe tied to it, but that is an option. I'm not as worried as the COA process, especially when they can get an administrative COA. And I want them to know the difference of that, because that's not that cumbersome. One of the questions that may come up, is there a church or churches already have these, I guess, designations that they may decide they want to talk to about what's been their experience, what have been the pros and the cons, what? That has only been informational, really, about destruction. Right, so we do not have any. So, before I discovered this plaque, mind you, there are no other designated churches within them. Because one of the members, I was talking to somebody, one of the members at First Christian Church thought they had a historical... They have a historical information sign. Like, from the city? No, from the state. So, they have the state of Texas historical marker. And there are some that are in historic districts that we've had to do COAs on. There are churches that they don't have historic designations. Correct, correct. So, we don't have any churches that have individual landmark designations connected to them. As I stated, we do have this plaque. I need to do further information to see if it was just a narrative that was done, or if it's actual designation, as I have not been able to find any ordinance related to it. But I will let you all know once I'm able to determine that. That is the only plaque that I've been able to find, though, related to one of our local churches. The rest are that state of Texas informational marker or historic marker. Well, the most recent one, this one, the... Yes, so we have this. One of them has only been recently built. It doesn't qualify for the 50 years. This one, the Mount Pilgrim Church, doesn't qualify for that. The structure would not know. That's correct. So, I don't know. I didn't have a chance to go through all of the criteria. So, they still qualify for a historic landmark? So, that's something we would have to run through. We should have done that before we talked to them, though, right? Right. Well, I would say there should be an idea of what the commission is hoping they will do, but this is also something that the community themselves should be reviewing and saying, "Hey, I really do feel like we qualify for this," or, "I don't think we qualify for this." This is not necessarily something that the commission or staff should be deciding for the community or those congregations. The congregation should be deciding that, and we can help them through that process. I mean, I'm feeling it, though. I think it's actually it. We haven't even looked at it at all. So, I didn't read this since I was all the way together. Exactly. So, there are options. There are. There are. Okay. So, then to summarize, then, what occurred is, and Marcella or Mia can type notes, or Lacy, so. But to summarize, then we talk about no more than a two-page handout that has kind of some FAQs or talking points that we're able to assist the commission with. We also discussed hosting a town hall meeting, if there's any interest from any of the congregations that might be interested in learning more about the designation process and what's all entailed associated with it, the pros and cons associated with it. And then, was there a third item? I think it was just those two. Oh, and I'm going to do additional grant research. Yes, additional grant research. That was the other item. We've talked a lot. We've talked a lot. Okay. So, we'll do that additional grant research. I was thinking also part of that, you know, if there are any quick available resources, maybe from the state where the churches might be able to benefit, we can include that as well. So, just in the event that there are some financial resources that the churches may be eligible to receiving, if they find some sort of designation, so. Yes. Okay. Next question. How soon can we get it all done? I'm looking at everybody here. How can we get it? How soon can we get this all done? I don't, I think we have to go really slowly because they have, you saw this. They, the city is currently proposing to do a downtown plan that will go all the way. I think, I think it goes down Carroll Boulevard, goes to whatever that lumpy street is that comes through there. The eagle drive. Oh, yes, yes. It is a very lumpy street. It is a very lumpy street. Always. But she said lumpy. Lumpy, lumpy. And it takes up part of southeast, I don't know exactly where their lines run there. But I know it does take in a part of southeast end. And that's to be the envision, I think, on overlay district. So we're getting a little off posting, but happy to bring back an item at your next meeting where we can talk about some of our various area planning efforts that we have going on. Because downtown is going to be one of them. And I know there was an agenda item recently on council's agenda that I think has also caused some confusion with respect to potential expansion. Tourist district boundaries. So that's not really into this item discussion. So I want to caution us not getting off posting. But we can always bring back at your next meeting or add to the matrix, if you will. We can talk more about that downtown area plan and that downtown tourist district and also the southeast end area plan. They will go like this in southeast end, the southeast end plan they want. And then the overlay is a downtown plan. There are two different things, Lainey. I know there are two different things, but I know they go over each other. And that's why, again, to make sure we don't get off posting, so it is let us bring that back because I think there's some confusion out in the community. But let us bring that back and happy to have a conversation with the HLC so you all understand what are some of the other work that we're doing. Some of what our economic development team had presented to council. I think it was at their previous two meetings ago. But happy to bring that back so we can have, so we're posted for that conversation. We can let you know all the different pieces that are happening right now. I don't, I think, from what I've heard tonight, I think everyone is in agreement for us to move forward with the historic designation to meeting the churches. If we can get that information, anyone else have any, did I get that wrong, anyone have any thoughts about it or? I would just love more information, a little bit more about the church. Yes, absolutely. I was about to say in regards to the timeline, I'm happy to bring that back in July and have it as a work session. You all get to see my two page packet that I've put together with all the information, the pros and cons. We can confirm that is everything that we want on there or we can remove or add things. So we can have that discussion and I can send it out, you know, really the next day via letter. Does that sound good? Sounds good. Okay, item B, HFC 23-002A, discuss and determine the opportunity for a future historic resource survey of the Southeastern neighborhood. Okay, so I do not have a presentation. This is more of a discussion. If you all read the AIS packet, staff is recommending that a historic resources survey not be conducted at this time due to the fact that we are undergoing the Southeastern area plan right now. And there has not been any direction specifically from the community expressing interest that we know as of yet. There are still different events as we see from here. There are still other listening sessions that are happening, different conversations that are in motion. So I would recommend that we table it at this time and bring it back at a later date if there is interest from the community. But that is staff's recommendation. Okay, anyone have any questions on that? We're going to move to item C. Thank you, Cameron. HLC 23-0025, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on the Historic Landmark Commission's request for local historic designation of eligible historic properties. Anyone have anything they would like to bring? I've already done mine, so. Where are we on that one? Are we going to talk about that one next? No, so that's basically I haven't been able to reach them because they get there at 4.30 in the morning. Yes, they do. And then they're gone. And I know they close over the July break. That's all I know is they take a week or two off. Okay, so, but I think since we're putting together this packet, that might be how I can reach out to them saying, hey, I know Mary, Commissioner Anderson, has reached out to you and spoken to you briefly about designating your property. You know, here, you know, this might be a great form that we put together specifically for Southeast, but that can be used for other properties that we have interest in designating. But as of now, I've not been able to reach them. I know. Actually, it's, you know, a little bit later in the morning is actually pretty easy to catch them. And before, between like 10 and about 11 or so, there's like a lull in their day, you know. Maybe I'll go get some baked goods for the department and take a little snack. Well, I mean, I'd better go at like 5.30 in the morning and get Erica. He's kind of busy at that time. Okay. He's much more receptive. Please, please go for Eric. Okay, noted. All right, thank you for that. Anyone else on this, on item C? Well, let's move to item D, HLC 23-2024, hold the discussion regarding the Historic Landmark Commission project mix. So we've had this discussion as of now. We do have these three up here still, the quantifying the economic impact of preserving historic properties, the benefits, and then presentation of preliminary guidelines. In addition, we have these items for landmark consideration, which are these two walking toward historic districts and landmarks to review any current property maintenance that's needed, or discussion of potential updates to the demolition code. We are still seeing a lot of demolitions currently in the city of historic structures that maybe not are located in a historic district. So that is still up for consideration. I did talk to Legal, and they are still working on the TWU and UNT designation research, but you should be receiving that within the next month. And then we have these additional work plan goals. Is there anything additionally that you all want to add or that you really want to put at the forefront of the discussions coming up in the future? We will be obviously adding to the request is to have that discussion of the two-page packet that will be sent out to the churches. But is there anything else? At some point, I would love an update of that Hickory garage issue. I would love the economic impact. I think that would be a real mover for city council and city in general if we demonstrate that impact. And also how preserving impacts other cities. I think that like Plano and Great Vine and McKinney has been a real mover in places. Commissioner McAdams, would you like for us to add a presentation on the area plan work that we are doing to the matrix? I suppose that would be a good idea. Extra information is always good. Ignorance is never the answer. I was going to say because we have two area plans that are currently underway and a third one that is going to be getting underway. Northeast Denton, I know has the Hartley Field and historic assets there and then we can also discuss the Southeast Denton plan that is underway and then also the downtown area plan update that will be kicking off here hopefully next month. When did you say you would have that two page document ready? The ministerial lines, which most of those churches are for, they are having a conference at the St. Andrew Church of God in Christ June 20-22 so I would be willing to drop off hard copies there if it is going to be ready by then. If not, then don't worry about it. That is too soon. That is next week. Is it next week? This is the 12th so eight days from now. I don't think that will work. The camera works hard but I think that is kind of. She is going to be up at 4.30. To that point though, Commissioner Berry, if you are going to be in attendance, you could at least let them know that we are working on pulling some information together and that the Historic Landmarks Commission is going to be leading some conversation about potential designations related to the churches. So at least you can get it on their radar and then that way we can come back in July with the information for the commission to make sure we pull together everything that you all are interested in receiving so we can make sure we have a good, productive conversation when we do the town hall. I would suggest that when we send it out to the five churches because they need it in their hands to think about it before they talk to us. But also send the group. Yes, okay. I can do that. Ms. Colette? Yes. Okay. I can do that. Would they mean this something? Well, I don't want to offend them by ignoring them on anything. Yes, in a very bad way. All right. Anyone else have anything else on the project matrix? All right. There is nothing further. We will find this adjourned. Any motion? No. I don't believe I need any. No. No. No. - I didn't. (laughing)